Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS, JJ
Mewar Associates, Through Its Proprietor Shri Rajeshwar Singh Son Of Shri Ram Singh Chundawat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contentions to criticize the judgment (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. commercial court proceeded in the matter (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. decision of the commercial court (Para 16) |
Order :
S.Chandrashekhar, J.
The challenge laid by M/s. Mewar Associates through its Proprietor is to the judgment dated 18th September 2019 passed in Case No.144/2018 (Original Suit).
2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Commercial Court: (1) whether the claimant is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.16,02,249/- with interest due to delay and failure on the part of the opposite party, (2) whether the decision of the Empowered Standing Committee dated 7th December 2012 is liable to be interfered with on the ground that the claimant was not provided an opportunity of hearing, (3) whether the suit is barred by limitation, (4) whether the Court has jurisdiction and power to entertain the suit and (5) whether relief can be granted to the claimant. On the issue of loss caused to the M/s. Mewar Associates (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-firm) to the tune of Rs.16,02,249/-, the Commercial Court held that no supporting
The court established that an Employer's failure to fulfill contractual obligations can invalidate penalties imposed on a contractor for delays, emphasizing fairness in administrative decisions.
A fundamental breach of contract occurs when one party fails to perform essential obligations, justifying claims for damages by the aggrieved party.
The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case and show irreparable loss to obtain an injunction. The court will consider the balance of convenience and the nature of the suit in reaching its decisi....
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing for setting aside awards only on grounds of patent illegality or if the award is perv....
(1) Disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations cannot be entertained by High Court in exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.(2) A wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make profi....
The court reinforced that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is limited, particularly regarding factual findings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
